if he's wrong about climate change, he'll look foolish. if he's right, you die.JK: Wrong.
There is only one way to reduce CO2 emission: Reduce burning fossil fuels and reduce making cement. Every one of the proposals to reduce CO2 will reduce our standard of living (except nuclear power.)

For instance, a carbon tax that will increase price of electricity to the point that people use much less. A carbon tax to the point that gasolene use drops dramatically. Ban on larger homes. Several hundred dollar tax on large cars. Tax on air travel.

We just saw the bio-fuels fallacy exposed. The same scientific illiterates that pushed biofuels are still pushing wind and solar electricity as THE solution. They aren’t. Solar power costs several times what we now pay. Both wind and solar are intermittent, so we have to have a conventional plant on standby, ready to take over instantly when the wind drops or the sun goes behind a cloud. Standby power is expensive and inefficient. I have seen claims that after all of the practical considerations, wind and solare do not produce any net power, when you get into double digit percentages of total generation.

Any measures that increase cost will hurt people by reducing their standard of living, but nobody is talking about this.

Some dream of all the new jobs, but those new jobs are merely adding jobs without adding to our production. That will make energy more costly - and reduce people’s standard of living.

There is only one way to reduce CO2 emission: Reduce burning fossil fuels and reduce making cement.

that's two ways. and 40% of Co2 emissions in the world are from buildings, JK. not from burning fossil fuels, either.

Every one of the proposals to reduce CO2 will reduce our standard of living (except nuclear power.)

yeah, we wouldn't want to reduce our "standard of living" to save us from potential planetary disaster, would we?

We just saw the bio-fuels fallacy exposed.

yeah, i helped.

The same scientific illiterates that pushed biofuels are still pushing wind and solar electricity as THE solution.

man, if thousands of scientists around the globe, including hundreds of Nobel prize-winners are your idea of "scientific illiterates", then i'd like to see who you *do* call a "scientific literate".

Solar power costs several times what we now pay.

yet half of what it cost 15 years ago.

Jim, lumping every issue you can find that concerns "global warming" into one big mass and then dismissing it isn't a discussion. we agree on some parts (biofuels) but the big picture--and the "scientific illiterates" are overwhelmingly at odds with your point of view.

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Ever notice how the panic-mongers (We're all gonna die because of global warming and it's all YOUR fault!) are completely unwilling to address the fact that a 0.5 degree Centigrade rise in temperature, closely paralleling that seen here - has also been observed on Mars?

They're so anthropocentric, so full of themselves, that they simply can't imagine anything other than human activity as a driver of climate change. That's just silly.

Does this mean that we should foul our nest? Of course not. The USA is now one of the "cleanest" nations on the face of the planet, and there is certainly little to be lost by continuing to search out ways to reduce our impact upon resources. Through research and development, we now have LEDs that consume a mere 12 watts of power while providing the equivalent lighting output of a 65 watt incandescent. Moreover, the LED sources last some 50,000 hours, contain no mercury (found in the widely-touted compact fluorescent bulbs), and take up little space in landfills if not recycled.

This sort of thing doesn't happen because people like AlGore and Eco beat you about the head and yell at you. It doesn't happen because of Kyoto or other regulatory efforts by folks who Know Better Than You. It happens because it's profitable for the developers and cost-effective for their customers.

ecohuman.com The same scientific illiterates that pushed biofuels are still pushing wind and solar electricity as THE solution. man, if thousands of scientists around the globe, including hundreds of Nobel prize-winners are your idea of "scientific illiterates", then i'd like to see who you *do* call a "scientific literate".JK: I am not aware of many real scientists pushing solar as an economical source of electricity.

How many of your scientists know anything about electrical systems?

ecohuman.com Solar power costs several times what we now pay. yet half of what it cost 15 years ago.JK: Get back to me when it is cheaper, including maintaining many square miles of panels. Then it will be practical.

I'm working to mitigate global warming so my kids and grandkids will have intact ecosystems to experience, and hunt and fish in.

You're a bleeding-heart lefty kid-ist, carrying on about generations that don't even exist yet. A dead-ender, denier of the Here and Now. You and your kind are in the final throes of your global warmist plot, and the other side is on to you. Once the sun spots subside, you'll be looking for a good fur coat and a natural gas plume to keep warm.

ecohuman.com here's just one example of "real" scientists pushing solar power:
.... there are hundreds more. do i think solar power is more than an anodyne? JK: You didn’t read my post. It was: I am not aware of many real scientists pushing solar as an economical source of electricity. (emphasis added.)

You link was to video about solar power’s history, and potential future - not a argument to switch to it today (and drive up the cost of electricity by several times.) Why do many eco devotees have no clue that cost matters? There are not many people ready to pay 2-10 times the current price of electricity.

ecohuman.com yes, but--i still believe the root problem is ever-increasing consumption. a tech solution only deals with symptoms.JK: What problem are you talking about, prosperarty? No, the root problem is the modern Luddite movement that opposes technology (except bicycles, computers and cell phones)

Jim, parse details until you get the result you want. what other kind of solar power would a scientist want to push, other than economical? prohibitively expensive, technologically awkward solar power?

No, the root problem is the modern Luddite movement that opposes technology

Allan L.: You still didn't answer my question. What exactly is "The Left's" (sportsmen, environmentalists, scientists, etc.) motive for trying to prevent or at least prepare for an ecological disaster?

ecohuman: Jim, parse details until you get the result you want. what other kind of solar power would a scientist want to push, other than economical? JK: Who is parsing, your answer was off target.

ecohuman: prohibitively expensive, technologically awkward solar power?JK: Unfortunately that is what is being widely pushed. Solar electric is much more costly than the local coal or nuke plant. Hopefully that will change, but today solar is a waste of money as a replacement for grid power. The exceptions are mostly where it would be too expensive to reach the grid.

ecohuman: "Luddites" are the root problem? you mean, all that pesky poverty, water source destruction, brownfield creation, Superfund sites, childhood lung disease and brain deformities from auto exhaust, factories and manfacturing chemicals, etc.?JK: You dig up a list of past practices that have been mostly stopped as we got wealthy enough to pay the higher costs of being clean. Or are you trying to convince us that your list is of current problems with today’s practices? BTW, poverty is cured, not caused by industrial progress.

Matt: There seems to be some consensus amongst global warming deniers that the left benefits from this issue. Can someone explain that benefit to me?JK: My guess is because the warming fallacy is being promoted by Democrat Al Gore (who has made millions spreading the word), many multinational eco corporations who have to create impending doom to keep the donations flowing in. The left tends to get taken in by this alarmism, more than the right, so these groups support leftists politicians. It is, so to speak, the left’s fundamentalism.

The lies and money grubbing from the eco multinationals is why Patrick Moore left the, eco multinational, greenpeace (which he founded) He started greenspirit.com to continue honest environmentalism. Have a look - it is quite different and more honest.

Matt: On the most personal level, I'm working to mitigate global warming so my kids and grandkids will have intact ecosystems to experience, and hunt and fish in.JK: Please don’t bother - the whole global warming panic is almost certainly a fraud that is enriching lots of people. Consider these facts that are pretty much undisputed:

1. In Antarctic ice core records, CO2 rise occurs an average of 800 years AFTER temperature.
2. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas - water vapor is the most effective greenhouse gas.
3. Man only emits a tiny percentage of the total CO2 emissions.
4. CO2 rose for about 20 years in mid century while temperatures dropped.
5. Solar cycles match this temperature drop AND matches the last 500 years better than CO2 variations.
6. The word’s highest quality temperature record, the USHCN, maintained by Al Gore’s science advisor and warmer, Jim Henson, shows that 1998 was tied with 1934 for the warmest year in the thermometer record. The record shows cooling since then.
7. Current rates of warming are less than has been seen in the past.
8. Current temperatures are less than have been seen in the past.
9. Plant remains, that dated A.D 800 - 1014, were found at the edge of the retreating Greenland glaciar.
10. Arctic ice has recovered and is now above average.
11. A number of solar scientists are predicting, based on the historical relationship between the sun and climate, that we are about to enter a long climate cooling phase.

Taken together, they mostly remove any cause for alarm and suggest that man is not causing the slight warming we have. Remember, with the latest revision to the USHCN data, 1998 is merely tied with 1934 as the warmest year since the little ice age, 400 years ago. (That is the non-alarmist way to state the often heard claim that 1998 was the warmest year in 400 years.)

Jim, planetary ecological destabilization isn't just about the "global warming debate". by focusing on a specific term, you're sitting off in a corner, mostly by yourself, saying "global warming isn't real!" while others are actually trying to do something about the hard-core evidence, to make a difference, to act on compelling evidence while not waiting for the irreversible damage to happen before going "oh crap, it's too late".

Jim, are you acting on 100% certain information? because if you're not, criticizing those that do sounds awfully foolish.

oh, and, Jim, the Union of Concerned Scientists, with several thousand members-- including just about every Nobel prize winner in related sciences in the past several decades--believes climate change is real and potentially ruinous.

ecohuman the hard-core evidence, JK: What hard core evidence of dangerous global warming?
As far as I know there is none. The hockey stick has been discredited, 1998 is no longer the warmest year in 400 years (the time of the little ice age), the Arctic ice had fully recovered to above average, the south pole has been accumulating ice for decades.

2. After "a conversation that's gone on for a year and a half," according to Gore, he has decided to join his old pal John Doerr as an active, hands-on partner at Kleiner Perkins, Silicon Valley's preeminent venture firm.
See: money.cnn.com/2007/11/11/news/newsmakers/gore_kleiner.fortune/

3. Al Gore appears to get $100,000 for speaking. See this for one example (price is on page 5):
thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0717071gore1.html

Its all about the money. Don’t ever forget:
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- Henry Louis Mencken
Or: I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is , as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are... Al Gore in Grist, 09 May 2006, grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ bold added.

BTW, a British court found a bunch of inaccuracies in Gore’s film (“over-representation of factual presentations”?)
See: newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html

Jim, can you explain how *any* of that is Gore being paid to "promote global warming"?

and what does the accuracy of Gore's film have to do with whether or not climate change is real?

more importantly, there's a complex, global issue of climate destabilization and resource depletion due to human activity. while it's happening, you're off in a corner trying to debunk "global warming".

which is like being on the Titanic just before impact, loudly complaining that the captain exaggerated the size of the iceberg.

now, how about answering a real question, like why only people you like are accurate, but groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists are "lefty fantasizers profiting from promoting global warming"?

ecohuman Jim, can you explain how *any* of that is Gore being paid to "promote global warming"?JK: All of those income sources rely on Al keeping people in a panic, which he is doing. Are you unable to see that, but accuse Patrick Moore or receiving money from the nuclear industry. Incredible.

ecohuman and what does the accuracy of Gore's film have to do with whether or not climate change is real?JK: He is lying about global warming. You are ignoring his admission of lying:I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is , as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are... Al Gore in Grist, 09 May 2006, grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ bold added.

ecohuman more importantly, there's a complex, global issue of climate destabilizationJK: What does that mean? SHOW ME SOME EVIDENCE.

ecohuman and resource depletion due to human activity.JK: Again: SHOW ME SOME EVIDENCE.

ecohuman like why only people you like are accurate,JK: Again: SHOW ME SOME EVIDENCE. You have seen my points that indicate we have no climate problem.

I suggest that you carefully evaluate the evidence before flying off in panic to save the world from some politician’s imaginary hobgoblins.

now, how about answering a real question, like why only people you like are accurate, but groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists are "lefty fantasizers profiting from promoting global warming"?

but you won't answer. instead, you'll sit in the corner and say..."but, Al Gore! but, Global Warming! left wing profiteers!"

unless you're willing to state why thousands of conservative scientists (including hundreds of Nobel-prize winners) are completely bonkers and you are right, you look very, very unconvincing. some might say silly.

ecohuman i'll post it again:JK: I’ll post it again:
SHOW ME SOME EVIDENCE.
Otherwise you are just blindly following some supposed authority.

ecohuman unless you're willing to state why thousands of conservative scientists (including hundreds of Nobel-prize winners) are completely bonkers and you are right, you look very, very unconvincing. some might say silly.JK: In case you didn’t know truth is not obtained by a majority vote. Are you incapable of looking at the evidence? Since you appear to like authorities, tell us why these 19,000 American scientists are wrong. See: http://www.oism.org/pproject/

ecohuman you've dodged commenting on the UCS again, Jim. why?JK: You are the one that is presenting them as an expert, show that they are experts in climate and that they understand the limitations of data, computer models and many other factors. Show us that they know Al Gore admits to lying. Show us that they know and understands each of the facts I posted above. I’ll bet most have just been going by the popular press and when they look at the real data, they will change their position LIKE A GROWING NUMBER OF EXPERTS ARE DOING.

the Union of Concerned Scientists, around for 40 years, over 200,000 members (40,000 or so scientists, hundreds of Nobel prize winners), working in diverse areas of science (including Defense, Food, Energy, fighting for Scientific Integrity), made up of acknowledged leaders in *every* major field of science, are simply not credible enough for you?

instead, you're holding up online petitions, creationists, and "environmental consultants" who lobby for uranium mining companies as the more credible on the environment?

now I get you, Jim. you don't want to evaluate--you just want to complain. i'll leave the last word to you, then.

ecohuman: now I get you, Jim. you don't want to evaluate--you just want to complain. i'll leave the last word to you, then.JK: It is pretty apparent that you are unwilling (or unable) to look at evidence and instead base your belief on what others tell you. You are merely practicing a religion.

Allan L.base your belief on what others tell you And you don't, JK? You've checked the ice cores and permafrost and the stratosphere temperatures (not to mention the sun spots) and run the chemistry experiments yourself?JK: I’ve obtained the relevant papers - have you?

Obviously I haven’t had my hands on the ice cores, but it is apparent that Al Gore and his zombies haven’t even looked at the papers about them or he would have not shown that chart of temperature vs CO2 because several recent papers show that temperature LEADS CO2 and, of course, the cause cannot follow the effect.

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 113
At this date last year: 155
Total run in 2016: 155
In 2015: 271
In 2014: 401
In 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269